Central Information Commission
R. K. Sharma vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 23 August, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CWCRP/A/2019/158788
Mr. R.K. Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Central Warehousing Corporation
4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz
Khas, New Delhi-110016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 08-08-2019 FA : 02-09-2019 SA : 05-12-2019
CPIO : 27-08-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 16-08-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi. The appellant in reference to an earlier reply of his RTI application seeking information as under:-
"Furnish the provision of the RTI Act, 2005, under which the disclosure of "privileged document" is barred based upon which the information had been denied to me by you vide letter dated 30.07.2019".
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 02.09.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The order of the first appellate authority, if any, is not on record of the Commission. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Page 1 of 3Hearing:
3. The appellant telephonically informed the Commission that he is suffering from COVID- 19 and is admitted in the hospital and hence pleaded that the matter be decided on merits. The respondent, Ms. Manisha Sabrawal, CGM/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 27.08.2019, they have categorically informed the appellant that the privileged document as sought by him through his earlier RTI application has been exempted from disclosure under Sec. 8(1)(h). Further she brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant has filed multiple RTI application on the similar subject matter.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has filed a fresh RTI application to seek clarification on the reply furnished to him on his earlier RTI application. Seeking clarification is not permissible as well as is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The CPIO is not expected to furnish clarifications/ explanation as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. However, the CPIO has furnished a reply by providing a clarification to the appellant on his RTI application beyond the scope of the Act.
6. In this context a reference was made to the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Page 2 of 3 Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. Hence, the Commission upholds the reply furnished by the respondent vide its letter dated 27.08.2019 and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance if any the appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 16-08-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Central Warehousing Corporation
4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016
2. Mr. R. K. Sharma
Page 3 of 3